W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 1999

RE: C++ DOM Binding

From: Stephen McConnell <mcconnell@osm.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:03:43 +0100
To: "Jonathan Robie" <jonathan@texcel.no>, <Ming-Fang.Wang@alltel.com>
Cc: <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-Id: <000001be3921$2b79d020$c212c6d4@cybercable.fr>

It seems to me the there is already a C++ mapping for IDL.  What appears to
be problematic concerning the W3C usage of IDL is that supplementary
language mappings are being defined.  Aside from political wangling, there
is one and only one valid technical reason for this that I am aware of,
namely the requirement to be able to map exceptions from attributes - a
feature not currently supported by IDL.  As a result the DOM IDL spec
carries a number of ambiguous exception declarations as comments in the IDL.

The good news is that proposals currently under the OMG Component technology
adoption process includes revisions to IDL to include exception declarations
on attributes.  Details of the Component proposal are available under
ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/orbos/98-12-02.zip.  With the inclusion of these
changes to IDL we can envisage a complete alignment of the activities within
OMG and W3C.

Cheers, Steve.

Stephen J. McConnell, OSM sarl
Business Components for Electronic Commerce

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-dom-request@w3.org [mailto:www-dom-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Robie
> Sent: Wednesday, 06 January, 1999 02:54
> To: Ming-Fang.Wang@alltel.com
> Cc: www-dom@w3.org
> Subject: Re: C++ DOM Binding
> At 02:46 PM 12/30/98 -0600, Ming-Fang.Wang@alltel.com wrote:
> >  Hi, I would like to know if there is a C++ DOM binding spec.
> No, there isn't. We often agree that this would be a good idea, but nobody
> has volunteered the time to do this yet.
> Jonathan
> jonathan@texcel.no
> Texcel Research
> http://www.texcel.no
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 1999 22:04:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:05 UTC